Hi Saku gotcha and I see most config examples are RSVP/SR-TE like, where in most of the networks I have come across basic LDP is more than acceptable.
On Tue, May 22, 2018, 17:48 Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > Hey Matt, > > > I guess my point is why go through the extra config to program labels for > > each box when LDP does it for you? Why loose potential visibility to > network > > traffic? Cisco sales and marketing is digging huge into the SR game for > > enterprise and SDWAN like backbone networking. They are touting about the > > whole industry changing, but I'm not seeing it anywhere in the large > network > > or provider space. Hench my original question why SR over LDP? Seems SR > is a > > lot of extra config to give you all the program options for white box > like > > networking, when basic LDP in a Cisco variant works just fine. > > There isn't inherently anything you need to configure in SR, it's all > implementation detail. > Juniper requires you configure your 'index', but just as well 'index' > could be inferred from your loopback0 or router-id. > > And indeed in your configuration generation where you generate your > router-id, you can use static method to turn router-id into unique > index and configure it once. > Or you could ask vendor to implement feature to auto-assign index. > > Much like some devices can auto-assign unique RD to VRF, some require > operator to assign them. Entirely implementation detail, not a valid > argument between protocols. > > > The upside of SR to LDP > - removal of entire protocol > - full-mesh visibility > - guaranteed IGP+Label sync > > The amount of configuration needed to do SR like LDP should be less > than LDP. Confusion may arise by looking at SR examples, as SR can > also be used like RSVP, which indeed is far more complex use-case. > > -- > ++ytti >
